Joël-Denis Bellavance appeared on CTV Power Play today revealing what his NDP sources are telling him should Jagmeet Singh lose this by-election in Burnaby-South.

The caucus convened a meeting shortly before Christmas break. Preparing a "Plan B" if Singh loses this by-election. There will not be a leadership race, because of lack of funds. Instead the caucus will elect a leader by "consensus" and the two names that have been put forward for leader are Nathan Cullen and Guy Caron.

If the NDP is actually making this contingency plan (and I don't see why sources within the party would make this up) then its very bad news for Singh.

But the party is right, if Singh can't win his own seat and a seat that the NDP won last election no less then what can he win? I would be satisfied with either Caron or Cullen as an interim leader for the election (though there definitely should be a party leadership race as soon as possible following the election, I don't want our leaders chosen by party insiders), both have potential regional upsides.

Cullen would be a draw for environmentalists and those against the pipelines, as well as those who are disappointed in the lack of action on democratic reform (which happen to be Trudeau's 2 biggest weaknesses on the left flank of his voterbase.)

Caron would be better at holding the seats that we still hold in Quebec.

Both are options that I believe would help the NDP in the next election.

I agree that either Caron or Cullen would be perfectly acceptable interim leaders for the party in the event that Singh loses in Burnaby, and agree with pietro's assessment of their respective strengths. I'd just add that I think they both have a personable warmth and sense of humour that could connect very well with Canadians at large, so I think either of them would be a superior retail politician than Singh, who's never been able to get past looking like a deer in the headlights (as NDP leader).

It seems almost pointless to bring up, but caucus doesn't actually have the authority to elect a new leader. If Singh loses the by-election and resigns, federal council appoints (in "consultation" with caucus) an interim leader until such time as there's a new leadership race. If he doesn't resign, a new race can't be triggered until the next federal convention, with an explicit vote. Sure, the entire caucus could cross the floor and join Cullen's Slightly More Liberal Party. Or after Singh stepping down, every other potential leadership candidate could decline, leaving Caron the unopposed choice. But the party constitution doesn't contain an "unless we're really broke" clause giving caucus that power.

Caron would be an improvement, especially in ideas(Ashton would be the best choice, but the party establishment would work all-out to stop her and, if she was elected, I wouldn't rule it out that they might sabotage her in the way the Labour right sabotaged Michael Foot's chances in the 1983 election if she did win). Cullen would be a disaster-it goes without saying that all Quebec seats would be lost with Cullen as leader-and if all Quebec seats were lost, that would guarantee that any gains the party made anywhere else would be too few in number to matter.

It’s not going to happen Ken Burch! Jagmeet isn’t going to lose. No fuckin way! This is all a bunch of garbage nonsense.

Now I always thought that Jag would wait for a Brampton seat, but I know Jag is fuckin great at organizing and mobilizing at the local level and it sounds like he’s got his ass wedged in thight in Burnaby south

mighty middle started this thread so that should tell you something right there

It seems almost pointless to bring up, but caucus doesn't actually have the authority to elect a new leader. If Singh loses the by-election and resigns, federal council appoints (in "consultation" with caucus) an interim leader until such time as there's a new leadership race. If he doesn't resign, a new race can't be triggered until the next federal convention, with an explicit vote. Sure, the entire caucus could cross the floor and join Cullen's Slightly More Liberal Party. Or after Singh stepping down, every other potential leadership candidate could decline, leaving Caron the unopposed choice. But the party constitution doesn't contain an "unless we're really broke" clause giving caucus that power.

If Singh loses the by-election, it would be inconceivable for him to remain as leader. He's already skating on thin ice in the eyes of the caucus and a large proportion of the membership; meanwhile the voting public has already registered its lack of confidence in him according to opinion polls. There may be no formal mechanism for removing a leader apart from a vote to that effect at Convention, but the leader's position would become untenable if the party's power brokers (caucus, affiliated unions, provincial leaders) advised him to step down. In that event, as you rightly say, Federal Council would have the authority to appoint an interim leader on the advice of caucus, as it did in appointing Nicole Turmel following Jack Layton's death in 2011. Around the same time, the BC NDP's Provincial Council appointed Dawn Black as interim leader following Carole James's resignation in the wake of a caucus revolt.

If Singh loses the by-election, it would be inconceivable for him to remain as leader. He's already skating on thin ice in the eyes of the caucus and a large proportion of the membership; meanwhile the voting public has already registered its lack of confidence in him according to opinion polls. There may be no formal mechanism for removing a leader apart from a vote to that effect at Convention, but the leader's position would become untenable if the party's power brokers (caucus, affiliated unions, provincial leaders) advised him to step down. In that event, as you rightly say, Federal Council would have the authority to appoint an interim leader on the advice of caucus, as it did in appointing Nicole Turmel following Jack Layton's death in 2011. Around the same time, the BC NDP's Provincial Council appointed Dawn Black as interim leader following Carole James's resignation in the wake of a caucus revolt.

Of course, in the two examples I cited, there was time for the party to elect a new leader prior to the next general election. In the current situation, whoever is chosen as interim leader would necessarily lead the party into this Fall's election.

I hope Caron is chosen, and not just because I voted for him last time. He has the best chance of salvaging the party's Quebec seats. And it goes without saying he'd be a vast improvement on Singh in all parts of the country.

Of course, in the two examples I cited, there was time for the party to elect a new leader prior to the next general election. In the current situation, whoever is chosen as interim leader would necessarily lead the party into this Fall's election.

Why? It's January. The fact the leadership race was drawn out last time doesn't mean it has to be next time. The Ontario PCs pulled one off in a month and a half, then won the election. If Singh resigned in the middle of an election, that'd be a different story.

I agree Caron would be a better leader, but still think letting the punditry and the "power brokers" set artificial tests to force out an elected leader is an abysmal precedent.

Why? It's January. The fact the leadership race was drawn out last time doesn't mean it has to be next time. The Ontario PCs pulled one off in a month and a half, then won the election. If Singh resigned in the middle of an election, that'd be a different story.

I agree Caron would be a better leader, but still think letting the punditry and the "power brokers" set artificial tests to force out an elected leader is an abysmal precedent.

If Singh loses the by-election, it would be inconceivable for him to remain as leader. He's already skating on thin ice in the eyes of the caucus and a large proportion of the membership; meanwhile the voting public has already registered its lack of confidence in him according to opinion polls. There may be no formal mechanism for removing a leader apart from a vote to that effect at Convention, but the leader's position would become untenable if the party's power brokers (caucus, affiliated unions, provincial leaders) advised him to step down. In that event, as you rightly say, Federal Council would have the authority to appoint an interim leader on the advice of caucus, as it did in appointing Nicole Turmel following Jack Layton's death in 2011. Around the same time, the BC NDP's Provincial Council appointed Dawn Black as interim leader following Carole James's resignation in the wake of a caucus revolt.

If there was a revolt against Singh trying to push him out I would hope that he refuses to resign. If the power broker revolt succeeded in forcing him out I would be done with the party.

I think you're using the word "inconceivable" without knowing what it means.

Why? It's January. The fact the leadership race was drawn out last time doesn't mean it has to be next time. The Ontario PCs pulled one off in a month and a half, then won the election. If Singh resigned in the middle of an election, that'd be a different story.

The Ontario PCs were polling in majority government territory while all of that was going on.

If Singh loses the by-election, it would be inconceivable for him to remain as leader. He's already skating on thin ice in the eyes of the caucus and a large proportion of the membership; meanwhile the voting public has already registered its lack of confidence in him according to opinion polls. There may be no formal mechanism for removing a leader apart from a vote to that effect at Convention, but the leader's position would become untenable if the party's power brokers (caucus, affiliated unions, provincial leaders) advised him to step down. In that event, as you rightly say, Federal Council would have the authority to appoint an interim leader on the advice of caucus, as it did in appointing Nicole Turmel following Jack Layton's death in 2011. Around the same time, the BC NDP's Provincial Council appointed Dawn Black as interim leader following Carole James's resignation in the wake of a caucus revolt.

If there was a revolt against Singh trying to push him out I would hope that he refuses to resign. If the power broker revolt succeeded in forcing him out I would be done with the party.

Why? It's January. The fact the leadership race was drawn out last time doesn't mean it has to be next time. The Ontario PCs pulled one off in a month and a half, then won the election. If Singh resigned in the middle of an election, that'd be a different story.

The Ontario PCs were polling in majority government territory while all of that was going on.

I agree, wage zombie.

The Ontario PC's were in a strong position because there was a fatigue in Ontario after the Wynne/McGuinty Liberals had been in power for nearly 15 years.

The PC's had been polling in 1st for a long time, so when Brown resigned because of the sex scandal controversy, Ford was able to just slide into the #1 position that Brown had occupied.

The Singh NDP is polling a distant 3rd right now and is not in the advantageous position that the Ontario PC's were in.

I think that Singh will hold onto the riding in Burnaby and talk of resignation is very premature. The NDP demands its elected MP's speak only when given permission but allows its backroom operatives to speculate about the elected party officials. Obviously the model is broken and needs replacing.

However if Singh loses and then resigns there is no problem holding a strictly electronic vote in a timely manner so that all the people in the wings that are so much better than the current leader can be showcased to the electorate. Over the summer the new messiah can lead the party out the wilderness following the barbecue trail to a New Jerusalem.

Singh is a democratically elected leader who won a landslide win just over a year ago. There are NDP members calling for him to resign NOW. Not before the election, NOW. This is unheard of. It makes no sense at all.

People are pointing at low fundraising, as if fundraising hasn't been low since Mulcair shit the bed. It will be interesting to see the year end numbers when they are available in a few weeks.

People are pointing at low polling. But the polling isn't any worse than Mulcair's floor when we were the Official Opposition. I don't remember people calling for Mulcair to step down at the time.

I think all the members here on babble want to see Singh stay on at least throught the byelection. If any of them are hoping Singh loses, they're keeping that a secret for now. I can't see any scenario where Singh losing is better than Singh winning, but I appreciate the current discretion of members here who think differently than that.

On Facebook I am seeing people calling for his resignation immediately, like yesterday couldn't be soon enough, and vocally cheering for him to lose.

It makes no sense to me. It is mind-boggling.

And they don't seem to realize that there would be a huge number of people who would be very upset with a movement to remove the leader.

The exact same thing that Jag is going through can apply to any of the parties leadership that have a seat in the house. And the ones without. Case in point was Doug Ford. Doug didn’t have a seat at Queens park when he won the pc leadership. Now there wasn’t time for bi elections so not the exact same comparison, but the corporate media wasn’t salivating at the opportunity to ridicule and taunt Ford with failure. Same goes for Justin. What would he do if he lost his seat in 10 months? Where’s the political pundits on this one?

Corporate media is going to attack the NDP for the simple fact they are the most socialist pro Labour Party

I remember before Ignatieff lost his seat in 2011, I never heard one single peep from the corporate media about “what if” he lost his seat.

Despite the odds, it’s a potential that exists for any mp and any potential mp. To me, it’s screaming obvious bias from the corporate media. They always try to hound the NDP with negativity in an attempt to make them look like losers not worth voting for. Corporate media is a load of fuckin garbage not worth my time!

I recall the corporate media being almost uniformly laudatory towards Singh. Declaring him the winner before he even announced his entry to the NDP leadership. I recall the fluff pieces about how he loves MMA, riding his bike and his fancy suits. I recall them stating how Justin Trudeau was in trouble and that Singh had the potential to be the Trudeau beater.

Singh didn't live up to the larger than life figure the media created. What has Singh done to deserve positive media coverage?

I recall the corporate media being almost uniformly laudatory towards Singh. Declaring him the winner before he even announced his entry to the NDP leadership. I recall the fluff pieces about how he loves MMA, riding his bike and his fancy suits. I recall them stating how Justin Trudeau was in trouble and that Singh had the potential to be the Trudeau beater.

Singh didn't live up to the larger than life figure the media created. What has Singh done to deserve positive media coverage?

I recall the corporate media being almost uniformly laudatory towards Singh. Declaring him the winner before he even announced his entry to the NDP leadership. I recall the fluff pieces about how he loves MMA, riding his bike and his fancy suits. I recall them stating how Justin Trudeau was in trouble and that Singh had the potential to be the Trudeau beater.

Singh didn't live up to the larger than life figure the media created. What has Singh done to deserve positive media coverage?

Oh of course sure that all happened. I even went further and said that Jag only entered the race because for some odd reason, polls had him in the race leading???? He didn’t even announce that he was running. Just like leading up to the 2014 or 15 Toronto mayors race, all of a sudden Olivia Chow, according to the these fucking polls was ready to win and be the next mayor of Toronto replacing rob ford(or was it Doug? Help me out here mr Magoo). Olivia was still an MP in Ottawa doing what she was elected to do when those polls came out in 2014. Total set up by the corporate media and the pollsters,

Big huge set up to fail. Or you can call it a trap. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, beware of the corporate media.

Sometimes I think it’s a joke when NDPers get into this debate of why we lost in 2015 because the corporate media and their servants, the polls, are never to blame, as if they’re innocent unbiased bystanders volunteering and pitching in in a time when Canadians are in deep contemplation concerned about the direction of Canada.

People are pointing at low polling. But the polling isn't any worse than Mulcair's floor when we were the Official Opposition. I don't remember people calling for Mulcair to step down at the time.

Tom Mulcair was never in single digits (& behind Elizabeth May) in personal approval ratings. Jagmeet Singh is and that is the difference.

WWWTT wrote:

I remember before Ignatieff lost his seat in 2011, I never heard one single peep from the corporate media about “what if” he lost his seat.

Actually they spent more time asking him if he would stay on as leader, no matter what the outcome was. And he said he would. They didn't ask him what would happen if he lost his seat, because everyone pretty much knew he would have to resign as leader - which he did the morning after the election.

So what’s the plan if Jagmeet wins Burnaby but the NDP loses Outremont badly and continues to lag in the national polls?

In that event, the NDP heads into election season underfunded, dispirited and disunited, and can expect a perfect storm election night: wiped off the map east of the Ottawa River, depressed results in Ontario, practically nothing on the Prairies and a reduced rump in BC.

IMO it's really the Canadian left which needs to develop a Plan B, though it's too late for 2019.

IMO it's really the Canadian left which needs to develop a Plan B, though it's too late for 2019.

I think many on the left have felt that establishing electoral reform and replacing FPTP was the best way to deal with the status quo. Under PR the NDP would still be of great value to the left even when they get just 10 - 18% of the votes. Under FPTP, the NDP greatly marginalizes the left when they represent those kinds of numbers.

I think many on the left have felt that establishing electoral reform and replacing FPTP was the best way to deal with the status quo. Under PR the NDP would still be of great value to the left even when they get just 10 - 18% of the votes. Under FPTP, the NDP greatly marginalizes the left when they represent those kinds of numbers.

unfortunately that idea doesn’t seem to be going anywhere right now either.

Mulcair is an asshole. Former leaders of parties are supposed to be elder statesmen not political commentators trashing their successor. The NDP has never gotten fair press coverage so I am not surprised that they still don't. If anyone doesn't understand why that is the case I suggest that they read the old classic; "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky.

Mulcair is an asshole. Former leaders of parties are supposed to be elder statesmen not political commentators trashing their successor. The NDP has never gotten fair press coverage so I am not surprised that they still don't. If anyone doesn't understand why that is the case I suggest that they read the old classic; "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky.

And you know what? He is probably fully aware the corporate media is eager as fuck to hire a former insider as himself on to help tar n feather the NDP! He's a sell out. Mulcair is just a typical sellfish materialistic person that judges people by their possessions and wealth! Good riddance!

Mulcair may feel badly treated and is trying to return the favour. That would reflect extremely badly on his character and it would prove the point of those who withheld support.

That's a bit of circular logic. If you slap me, and I slap you back, you can't reasonably say "I always knew you were the violent type".

As I recall it, Mulcair couldn't leave fast enough or with his head bowed low enough for some folk. I missed the part where he was invited to remain an elder statesman. Without respect, "elder statesman" just means "elderly".

I think many on the left have felt that establishing electoral reform and replacing FPTP was the best way to deal with the status quo. Under PR the NDP would still be of great value to the left even when they get just 10 - 18% of the votes. Under FPTP, the NDP greatly marginalizes the left when they represent those kinds of numbers.

unfortunately that idea doesn’t seem to be going anywhere right now either.

Mulcair is an asshole. Former leaders of parties are supposed to be elder statesmen not political commentators trashing their successor. The NDP has never gotten fair press coverage so I am not surprised that they still don't. If anyone doesn't understand why that is the case I suggest that they read the old classic; "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky.

You make a valid point that it's awkward for a party to have a former party leader become a political commentator so soon after leaving politics.

It's one thing for a former MP to become a political commentator, but for a party's recently-departed leader to do so is a problem. As Mulcair says, he has to be objective as a commentator, which means that he's now making some critical comments about the NDP and its leader.

Honestly I've listened to Mulcair as a commentator on CJAD and he's a lot better at punditry than being a politician. He actually has well thought out and intelligent commentary on Canadian and Quebec politics. As for his commentary on Jagmeet Singh, he actually clearly tries to be as nice as possible when talking about Singh, but he's not going to lie and paint a rosy picture that is completely divorced from reality.